Scott v. Omler ( 2024 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JAMES E. SCOTT, Case No. 3:23-cv-00294-ART-CLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 OMLER, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Plaintiff James Scott brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 9 to redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated 10 at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 7). On May 8, 2024, this Court 11 ordered Scott to file an amended complaint by June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 6). The 12 Court warned Scott that the action could be dismissed if he failed to file an 13 amended complaint by that deadline. (Id. at 12). That deadline expired and Scott 14 did not file an amended complaint, move for an extension, or otherwise respond. 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 17 the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 18 appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los 19 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 20 on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See Carey v. 21 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to 22 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 23 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 24 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In determining whether to 25 dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the Court must consider: (1) the 26 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 27 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 28 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130). 3 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 4 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 5 dismissal of Scott’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 6 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 7 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or 8 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 9 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 10 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 11 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic 12 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 13 Court’s need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 14 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before 15 the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord 16 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not 17 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but 18 must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 19 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot realistically proceed 20 until and unless Scott files an amended complaint, the only alternative is to enter 21 a second order setting another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored 22 order is that it often only delays the inevitable and squanders the Court’s finite 23 resources. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an 24 exception. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given these 25 circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 26 CONCLUSION 27 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that 28 they weigh in favor of dismissal. It is therefore ordered that this action is 1 || dismissed without prejudice based on James Scott’s failure to file an 2 || amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s May 8, 2024, order and for 3 || failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 4 || accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed in this now- 5 || closed case. If Scott wishes to pursue his claims, he must file a complaint in a 6 || new case. 7 It is further ordered that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 8 || No. 3) is denied as moot.. 9 DATED THIS 15th day of August 2024. 10 11 12 Ans jloset dn 13 ANNE R. TRAUM 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28